Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...
RE: Making a difference ??[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: RE: Making a difference ??
- From: "HEATH MITCHELL" <hmitchell(--nospam--at)pcsainc.com>
- Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 14:16:18 -0800
First, I would like to acknowledge the fact that I work with one of the authors of this document. The following opinions are my own and are not written on his behalf nor at his request. Although this issue annoyed me the first time it came up, I let it pass. Now that it has come up a second time, for no apparent reason other than an ego trip for the email author, I would like to respond. Gail, Wow, I guess this Steel Tips really got under your skin. While I applaud your effort to make a difference, I would suggest that a modicum of respect and professional courtesy might be in order. >From: GSKWY(--nospam--at)aol.com >Subject: Making a difference ?? >To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org > >The issue of what anybody is doing to make a difference is kind of interesting. >Based on my criticism of a Structural Steel Educational Council publication, I was contacted by a >member of SSEC and asked to be a reviewer for their publications. The individual indicated that this >would "benefit all engineers". > >However I was expected to do this on a volunteer basis; the individual indicated that all reviewers >were volunteers. This particular individual worked for a steel producer, in other words, a steel >producer was paying him to volunteer his time. But yet this individual thought I might like to spend >my evenings and weekends helping to do promotional work for the structural steel industry. This >individual was mistaken. I have found the Steel Tips series to be extremely useful aids and have put the information they contain to much use. It's too bad that you are not willing to donate your time and expertise, as many others do, to the review of documents that will benefit others in your profession. Actually, it was my impression that most technical journal review is done on a volunteer basis as well. Maybe myself and other reviewers I know are the only ones not getting subsidized by our firms to review documents... Regardless, I think you are missing the point of several other recent threads on this list. The point was to get involved in order to promote and assist our profession. Typically this involves volunteering to do things. That is, actually doing things for free. The SSEC publications are actually very useful publications, for two reasons. Number one, they are free. Number two, they are very good examples of very bad engineering writing. >To do my bit to make a difference, here are some selected sentences from "Notes on Design Of Steel >Parking Structures Including Seismic Effects" by Lanny J. Flynn, P.E., S.E. and Abolhassan Astaneh->Asl, Ph.D., P.E. Thanks Gail. Your efforts to elevate the quality of technical literature in a professional manner are noted by all. >Page 16 - "Internal stresses are reduced and better managed by utilization of appropriately spaced >expansion joints, and construction joints such as pour strips." > >Note: pour strips are not a type of construction joint. Nor are they a type of expansion joint. I would call an area of slab not poured with adjacent areas, a construction joint. If this is not proper terminology, please educate me. >Page 18 - "Concrete ingredients that are beyond the basic aggregates cement and water are classified >as admixtures that require particular formulation under the supervision and approval of the structure >design engineer." > >Note: cement and water are typically not considered aggregates. In addition, the design engineer >typically does not formulate admixtures. I would propose that this is common knowledge and that the hyphens are typos. Anyone who reads this and interprets it the way you proposed has no business designing anything in concrete. Additionally, the referenced text does not say that the structure's design engineer formulates admixtures. It says that they are formulated under the supervision and approval of the structure's engineer. If you read the paragraph that follows, I think the intent becomes clear. >Page 20 - "Make certain that the concrete is well compacted under the top layer of reinforcing steel >to avoid steel settlement during the concrete hardening. Concrete placed over settled bars is weak >and can crack as a result." > >Note: reinforcing steel is usually supported on chairs. The compaction of the concrete does not have >a major effect on "steel settlement." It is also not clear why concrete placed over "settled bars" is >weak. Can't help you here. I could assume the intent, but you know what they say about assuming... >Then there are these sentences (I have not added, deleted, or modified any words): > >Page 14 - "To ensure long term durability of reinforced concrete decks and to avoid corrosion, the >use of epoxy-coated." Looks like a typo. Adding "rebar is suggested" to the end of the sentence would fix it. >Page 26 - "All of the above structural systems can be used in parking structures with some being more >economical than others are park." Looks like another typo. Deleting "and park" would fix this one. >Given that the authors were described to me as being well respected in the structural steel industry, >I would be curious to see what someone who is not well respected would write. The individual from >SSEC indicated that all SSEC documents are reviewed, which makes this document even more >embarrassing. > >In general, SSEC documents seem to be "pay by the pound" literature, a type of literature made >popular by authors like John McPhee. I.e. the authors are paid for the length of the document. They >get paid more if they are able to expand 100 words into 500. Or expand three pages into 61. >Unfortunately, to do this sucessfully requires at least a modicum (smidgen, dash, pinch) of writing >skill. As I said before, I have used these documents often. Your statement, "In general, these documents seem to be 'pay by the pound'", does alarm me. Can you please expand on the technical errors in the other 40 or so Steel Tips. You obviously must have read a majority of them to make such a statement. Or since most are done for a very nominal fee, did you mean that they are already much too long? >But heck, the documents are available for free from the AISC web site, so what is there to complain >about? Since this particular document bothers you so much, I suggest you volunteer your time to write and publish a similar one that is free for all to obtain. Just so you understand where I'm coming from, I don't think that it's o.k. to publish material with errors, but typos happen. What I have a problem with is how you handled it. Did you consider sending this information to the SSEC? If you did, why send it here? You already made your point on this before. Please explain what you intended to accomplish by revisiting this again. What is the new point? How are you making a difference?? Regards, Heath Mitchell P.S. I am subscribed in digest mode, so please copy me directly with any responses on this thread. Thank you. ******* ****** ******* ******** ******* ******* ******* *** * Read list FAQ at: http://www.seaint.org/list_FAQ.asp * * This email was sent to you via Structural Engineers * Association of Southern California (SEAOSC) server. To * subscribe (no fee) or UnSubscribe, please go to: * * http://www.seaint.org/sealist1.asp * * Questions to seaint-ad(--nospam--at)seaint.org. Remember, any email you * send to the list is public domain and may be re-posted * without your permission. Make sure you visit our web * site at: http://www.seaint.org ******* ****** ****** ****** ******* ****** ****** ********
- Prev by Subject: Making a difference ??
- Next by Subject: RE: Making a difference ??
- Previous by thread: Making a difference ??
- Next by thread: RE: Making a difference ??